Holographic imaging

I can understand Roger continuing this discord.After all he is financially involved.What I don't understand is why Tbg now feels the need to continue.
Personally I am partial to Lamm,Shindo and dehavilland electronics.I'm sure there are many that would disagree with me.If others thought these MFG's claims were off base so be it.Whatever turns you on.
Guys you all have systems that you enjoy.GO AND LISTEN TO IT.

What I don't understand is why H-CAT doesn't have the audiophile community beating a path to its door (not that it isn't a great piece of gear, I don't know, I have never heard it). I don't have any idea what Ralph measures or doesn't measure, but I do know that his gear is bought by many, that most owners love them and are extremely brand loyal, and that he has been successfully running his business for many years, which makes me think that he's on to something. I will, however go listen to the H-CAT if it is at RMAF and couldn't care less what is being measured or not, I'll just listen. I don't think "theory" marketing makes for long term success in the audio market, though it might get you a surge of interest that might or might not be sustained once enough people of have owned and expreienced the equipment -- then it better sound good no matter what your theory is.

To get one thing clear: I am not a measurement guy.That should have been clear from my post above and as Atmasphere has pointed out, this is not a debate between measurements and ear, between "subjective" and " objective ". What I meant by "current scientific terms " I could also put less politely by saying that Ralph's arguments to me seem logical and to me make sense, whereas I must say that I find Rogers' reasoning shifty, contradictory and lacking in stringency and logic. As far as I am concerned, this does not necessarily inspire confidence. On the other hand however, even if Rogers reasoning may not be up to standard, this does not mean, that he is not up to something valid. Only his way of explaining and "selling" it would hardly convince a critical mind, not even one belonging to a good willed person. Again, as also Pubul57 so rightly suggests, the proof lies in the listening and Goldeneraguy, yes indeed, I wish we could turn to other things of interest and I'll try to make this my last statement in this matter.

Dazzdax, I am sorry my comment subverted your thread. I had no idea this would happen.

Detlof, I don't share your opinion about you is being logical and who is not.

The topic of distortion perception is a fascinating one. In my opinion, it makes sense to focus on those distortions that are subjectively objectionable, but not worry about those that are of no audible consequence.

At this point I'm completely unconvinced by Roger Paul's claims. I do not believe that frequency can be modulated by modulating intensity in an electronic circuit. And if such modulation is occuring on a low-level scale, I do not believe that it is of any audible significance. Based on some of Roger Paul's examples, I think it would be obscured by a well-established characteristic of human hearing called "masking". Briefly, masking refers to the ear's tendency to completely ignore a low-level signal that is close in frequency to a simultaneous high-level signal.

If Roger Paul is dealing with changes in gain of 1/100th of a dB or less (as he claims), then any hypothetical doppler-type frequency-bending (which I do not believe takes place) would be completely ignored by the ear.

Duke
dealer/manufacturer